legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Holquin

Appellant Paul Joseph Holquin was charged with one count of possession of child pornography. (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a).)[1] A jury convicted appellant after trial and he was placed on three years probation, the conditions of which included a prohibition against residing near, visiting or being within 100 yards of places where minors frequent or congregate. On appeal, appellant challenges the imposition of this condition arguing that the registered sexual offenders residency restriction requirement in section 3003.5, subdivision (b) applies only to parolees, and does not apply to probationers such as appellant, and that the trial court was under the mistaken belief that section 3003.5’s residency restriction applied and was mandatory. Appellant further argues that the residency requirements of section 3003.5, subdivision (b), constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Respondent agrees that the residency requirements of section 3003.5, subdivision (b), apply only to parolees, argues that the trial court recognized and properly exercised its discretion, and contends that appellant lacks standing to challenge the alleged unconstitutionality of the residency requirement.
We affirm.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale